Poor Things holds a Metacritic rating of 88 out of 100 based on reviews from 62 critics, placing it in the “universal acclaim” category on the platform’s scale. This score represents a strong consensus among film critics that the 2023 film, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, is a significant artistic achievement worthy of serious consideration.
The rating reflects widespread appreciation for the film’s distinctive visual style, narrative ambition, and creative vision.
- Metacritic Rating Poor: Table of Contents
- WHAT DOES AN 88 SCORE MEAN ON METACRITIC?
- CRITICAL CONSENSUS AND THE DIVERSITY OF OPINION
- THE DISSENTING VOICES AND WHAT THEY REVEAL
- HOW POOR THINGS RANKS AMONG 2023 RELEASES
- AWARDS RECOGNITION AND CRITICAL VALIDATION
- BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE AND CRITICAL SUCCESS
- THE LASTING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCORE
- Conclusion
- You Might Also Like
This high critical score translates to real recognition within the industry. Poor Things went on to win 4 Academy Awards at the 96th Academy Awards, appeared on numerous critics’ lists of the top ten films of 2023, and grossed over $117 million at the worldwide box office.
The 88 score on Metacritic, while not perfect, indicates that critics largely coalesced around the film’s merits despite its unconventional approach to storytelling and aesthetics.
Table of Contents
- WHAT DOES AN 88 SCORE MEAN ON METACRITIC?
- CRITICAL CONSENSUS AND THE DIVERSITY OF OPINION
- THE DISSENTING VOICES AND WHAT THEY REVEAL
- HOW POOR THINGS RANKS AMONG 2023 RELEASES
- AWARDS RECOGNITION AND CRITICAL VALIDATION
- BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE AND CRITICAL SUCCESS
- THE LASTING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCORE
- Conclusion
WHAT DOES AN 88 SCORE MEAN ON METACRITIC?
metacritic‘s numerical scale divides critical reception into distinct tiers, and an 88 falls squarely within “universal acclaim,” a designation typically reserved for films earning scores between 81 and 100.
This means that among the 62 critics sampled for Poor things, the overwhelming majority gave positive reviews, with relatively few negative assessments pulling the average down.
For context, a score in the 88 range puts a film in rare company—most releases never reach this level of critical consensus.
The mathematics behind the score matter less than what it communicates: critics found more to praise than to criticize in Poor Things. An 88 is significantly higher than a 70 (which represents “generally favorable reviews”) and represents a fundamentally different critical reception.
A film could have dozens of positive reviews but still score lower if a few high-profile critics delivered particularly harsh assessments. The fact that Poor Things achieved an 88 despite some notable dissenting opinions speaks to the breadth of its critical appeal.
CRITICAL CONSENSUS AND THE DIVERSITY OF OPINION
The phrase “universal acclaim” can be misleading, suggesting unanimity where none exists. Even with its 88 score, Poor Things had critics who actively disliked it. The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis, a prominent voice in film criticism, found that the film’s story became “monotonal, flat and dull” as it progressed.
Similarly, Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle was even blunter, dismissing it as “a 141-minute mistake.” These were not minor publications or obscure critics—they were substantial voices in the critical conversation.
What this demonstrates is that Metacritic’s scoring system captures the aggregate opinion while necessarily flattening the texture of critical disagreement. Some critics embraced Poor Things precisely for the qualities that troubled Dargis and LaSalle. The film’s repetitive narrative structure and stylized presentation divide viewers in ways that a single numerical score cannot fully capture.
When reading an 88 on Metacritic, it’s important to recognize that this reflects the overall trend rather than universal consensus, and that reading individual reviews reveals the genuine fault lines in critical opinion.
THE DISSENTING VOICES AND WHAT THEY REVEAL
The existence of strong negative reviews alongside an 88 score illuminates something important about how films are received. Poor Things occupies an unusual position in contemporary cinema—it’s the kind of film that could plausibly appear on both a best-of-the-year list and a worst-of-the-year list, depending on the critic’s tolerance for stylistic experimentation.
The film’s 141-minute runtime becomes a liability in LaSalle’s assessment, suggesting that the length amplified rather than deepened the experience.
This pattern reveals that critical praise for artistic ambition doesn’t prevent criticism of execution or pacing. Dargis and LaSalle weren’t rejecting innovation for its own sake; they were questioning whether the film’s formal choices actually served the story being told.
The 88 score essentially means that most critics believed they did, while these dissenting voices believed they didn’t.
This distinction matters for prospective viewers trying to decide whether the film is worth their time, since a person who shares LaSalle’s concern about narrative repetition would likely have a very different experience than someone who found that same quality meditative and deliberately constructed.
HOW POOR THINGS RANKS AMONG 2023 RELEASES
The critical landscape of 2023 saw several acclaimed films, making Poor Things’ 88 score particularly meaningful as a comparative measure. Without citing specific competing titles (as each film’s context and genre affect critical scoring), Poor Things’ score places it among the year’s most critically respected releases.
The film’s inclusion on multiple critics’ top-ten lists of 2023 provides corroborating evidence that the 88 score reflects genuine admiration rather than mere respectability.
The gap between an 88 and, say, a 75 or a 92 represents real differences in critical consensus. A 92 would suggest even fewer significant dissenting voices, while a 75 would indicate a notably more divided critical reception.
Poor Things lands in a sweet spot for a challenging, avant-garde film—well-regarded enough to be taken seriously by serious film audiences, but not so overwhelmingly praised that it transcends all critical disagreement. This positioning has proven sustainable, as the film has maintained cultural relevance and discussion in the years following its release.
AWARDS RECOGNITION AND CRITICAL VALIDATION
The four Academy Awards won by Poor Things at the 96th Academy Awards provide institutional validation for the critical consensus reflected in the Metacritic score. Awards bodies and critics don’t always align—a high Metacritic score doesn’t guarantee major awards, nor do major awards require a high critic score.
In this case, however, Poor Things achieved both, suggesting that the 88 score reflects something real and durable about the film’s artistic merit.
The Oscar wins are significant because they come from an industry institution with different selection criteria than film critics. While critics evaluate films for their artistic innovation and emotional resonance, Oscar voters consider these factors alongside technical achievement, cultural impact, and prestige. The fact that Poor Things convinced both groups speaks to its substantive accomplishments.
However, it’s worth noting that not all Oscar-winning films maintain high Metacritic scores over time, as critical reassessment occasionally happens years after initial release.
BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE AND CRITICAL SUCCESS
The worldwide box office gross of over $117 million for Poor Things is notably strong for an avant-garde, stylistically challenging film.
This financial success doesn’t directly affect the Metacritic score, which measures critical opinion rather than audience reception, but it does indicate that the critical praise translated into audience interest.
Many challenging films reviewed positively by critics struggle at the box office, particularly in North America, so the film’s commercial performance is worth highlighting.
The correlation between critical success and commercial viability in this case suggests that word-of-mouth and critical prominence helped audiences find the film despite its unconventional nature. However, a Metacritic score measures professional critics’ opinions, not audience reception.
Online audience scores (like user ratings on imdb or other platforms) may differ from the critical consensus represented by the 88, and potential viewers should be aware that critical acclaim for artistic experimentation doesn’t automatically mean mainstream appeal.
THE LASTING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCORE
An 88 on Metacritic for a 2023 film is not a temporary snapshot but rather a measure that tends to be relatively stable over time. Unlike some critical reputations that shift substantially as years pass, films with this level of consensus often maintain their standing, particularly when they’ve already received major awards recognition.
Poor Things appears positioned to remain a reference point in discussions of 2023 cinema and of Yorgos Lanthimos’ career.
The score also serves as a gateway for future viewers encountering the film for the first time. New audiences discovering Poor Things will likely see that 88 score and understand that critics took it seriously, even if individual critics disagreed sharply about its merits.
In this way, the Metacritic score becomes part of the film’s cultural legacy, shaping initial expectations and inviting continued engagement with its ideas and aesthetics.
Conclusion
Poor Things’ Metacritic rating of 88 out of 100 represents a genuine critical consensus that the film is an accomplished work of cinema deserving serious attention, despite some notable dissenting voices. This score reflects appreciation for the film’s aesthetic choices and creative ambition while acknowledging that not every critic found these qualities successful.
The rating places the film in elite company among 2023 releases and aligns with its subsequent success at major awards ceremonies and at the box office.
For potential viewers, the 88 score signals that Poor Things is worth considering, though the individual reviews underlying that score reveal genuine disagreements about whether the film’s formal choices ultimately serve the narrative.
The score represents professional critical judgment at a particular moment, and like all critical assessments, it works best when read alongside specific reviews that explain what critics actually thought about what they saw.
You Might Also Like
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Shape of Water
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Revenant
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Power of the Dog
For more on Metacritic Rating Poor, see the full breakdown above – the metacritic rating poor details cover what most viewers want to know.
